Though the above two revision petitions are filed by different persons challenging different orders passed by different courts and though the facts and circumstances involved are different, as the orders impugned are issued under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and as the question of law and facts involved are identical, the above revision petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.R.P.No.1171 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 4.4.2011 in CMP No.1627 of 2011 (in O.R.No.4 of 2011 of the Kollengode Forest Range) of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. by which the prayer of the petitioner, who is an accused and R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.K.L.05/X 6336 involved in the above case was rejected. As per the said order, though the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the said court has ample power to order release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C., but having regard to the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, more particularly when the petitioner himself is allegedly involved in the illegal transport of the barks of kulamavu and wazhana in contravention of the provisions of law, the court was not inclined to order the release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, though he is the RC owner of the vehicle. The allegation in the above case is that the accused therein including the petitioner, who is the first accused, have committed the offences punishable under Section 27(1)(d)(e)(iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for short as ‘the Act’ only for illicit debarking, collection and removal of forest produce viz., the barks of kulamavu, wazhana/edana. As per the prosecution case, the total quantity of 6722 kg of kulamavu and wazhana barks mixed together were filled in 72 gunny bags and the total value of the above ‘forest produce’ will fetch up to Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. Crl.R.P.No.1293 of 2011 is preferred against the order dated 8.4.2011 in CMP No.1324 of 2011 in O.R.No.1 of 2011 of the Poongode Forest Range, of the court of Judicial First class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery, whereby the request of the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle viz., mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL7-H 7083, for interim custody was declined under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The allegation in the above case is that the trees standing in the reserved forests were cut and removed and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Section 27(1)(d)e)(iii) and (iv) of the Act and Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995.

4. Heard Mr. Prasun. S. and Mr. Santhosh P. Poduval the counsel for the petitioners in the above two revision petitions and Sri. V. Tek Chand, learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The specific contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above cases are that the courts below have ample power by virtue of Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C., and in view of the various provisions contained in the Act, viz., Sections 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 and 58 of the Act and particularly, in view of Section 54 of the above Act. According to the learned counsel, the reason assigned by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order that the confiscation proceedings have already been started is not a legal ground to decline the relief and refuse to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the authorized officer for confiscation under the provisions of the above Act has no supremacy in power over the court of law.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. S. Prasun, emphatically submitted that Section 61A of the Act is not applicable in his case since the ‘bark’ allegedly seized in the case will not come under any of t